1

John Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 15 No. 1 (1990), pp. 5-56.

John Ikenberry, “The Liberal International Order and its Discontents,” Millennium, Vol. 38 No. 3 (2011), pp. 509-521.

eties. One is the interstate society, where the 200-odd nation states live, each enjoying and insisting on national sovereignty; the other is global society, where various state and non-state actors interact, dealing more with issues across national boundaries and with problems arising in the global commons.

Interstate society is a Westphalian legacy. up to the end of the cold War, interstate society stood alone as the dominant force in international affairs. While over many years non-governmental organizations grew in quantity and quality, the dominant multilateral organizations were intergovernmental in nature. the de jure sovereign, equal status of all nation states — though some were more equal than others — made this society largely a realist space, despite its norms, rules and social ties.

the main theme of interstate society was the survival of the nation state. Accordingly, the struggle for power was natural and the national interest was the highest goal of any state. In this reality, threats to state security largely came from other states and perceived threats were taken as the most reasonable excuse for increasing one’s own material capabilities, resulting in an endless security dilemma. In such a society, where the struggle for survival dominated, realism seemed the most appropriate paradigm to describe international life, leaving little space for morality, trust and friendship.

following the end of the cold War, globalization began to sweep the world. dazzling flows of capital, information, ideas and people moved across national borders and helped create something

At a time when co-ordination and cooperation are most urgently needed, we have seen nations going their own way, seemingly indifferent to thousands of deaths. We see rhetorical attacks and abuses against ‘others.’

of a dreamland for the future. A new society, the global one, has emerged, that goes beyond the borders of nation states and moves deep into the commons of the world. It is populated by a multiplicity of actors, including nation states, non-state actors, individuals and other elements of global civil society. sovereignty, national interest and inter-state security dilemmas — these high-profile terms are no longer catchwords in the global society. Rather, common goals, joint interests, shared future and threats to humankind have become the language of this emerging society. the global society has problems that differ from those of the interstate society. the most succinct word is perhaps “transnational.” the threats are no longer principally between or

among nation states but threats to humankind. terrorist attacks, climate change and pandemic diseases know no national boundaries. they menace everyone. No country, no matter how powerful, can deal with such threats alone. the logic of the global society is the search for global solutions when threats arise.

the simultaneous existence of the interstate society and the global society has become a characteristic feature of our times. On the one hand, the interstate society continues to show most of its defining features — security anxiety, power struggles, conflicts of interest and state-to-state threats. On the other hand, global society is an increasingly indispensable factor in the world order. transnational threats require mutual help, joint action and genuine solidarity.

If this new reality is taken into consideration, the major obstacle to successful global governance arises from the tension between these two societies, the interstate and the global. In a dialectical sense, this tension constitutes the core contradiction in the process of globalization and global governance. the interstate society applies its rules and norms, following basically the principle of territorial sovereignty and seeking egoist national interest. It creates a centrifugal force that tends to pull the state back to its self-enclosed stronghold. the global society, however, has irreversibly evolved as a parallel and equally significant factor in world affairs, with goals incongruent with those of the interstate society. Quite often, national interest should be compromised for the sake of the global good in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons. the emergence of the global society creates a centripetal force that pushes states to move toward the global and into an open process of globalization. the tension between the centrifugal and centripetal forces has thus become the core contradiction for global governance. In the interstate society, states behave like sovereign equals and pursuit of national interest is the unalterable truth. Even a Machiavellian beggar-thyneighbor policy is welcome if justifiable in the name of the state. In the global society, the state should behave like a good global citizen. It stands together with various other actors and

Indeed, more than three decades since globalization began in earnest, none of the pressing threatening issues for humankind have been dealt with effectively. The deficits of global governance are stunning.

should sacrifice its self-interest, if necessary, for the sake of the global commons.

As globalization has advanced, problems have emerged one after another, unavoidably involving and traversing both societies. Once the national and the global do not agree and the interests of the state and the global commons are at odds, which is quite often, the tension becomes conspicuously high. And more often than not, interstate society wins out. the spread of the coronavirus illustrates most vividly this contradiction: while the logic of the global society should be followed, the logic of the interstate society dominates.

fixing Multilateralism

Multilateralism must continue to be the pillar if global problems are to be dealt with effectively, especially compared with empire, hegemony and balance-of-power politics. for better governance and a sustainable world order, it is imperative for the world to uphold multilateralism while also solving the problems of governance failure. Reform is urgently needed to bridge the gap between the two societies.

there are at least three aspects of current multilateralism that point to the need for profound reform. first, multilateral institutions were established to manage problems arising from state-to-state relations. By design, this meant that nation states were the exclusive members of these institutions. Inadequate participation has become particularly apparent as more and different actors play important roles in world affairs in the process of globalization. second, the shadow of hegemony haunts the current practice of multilateralism. Hegemonic capabilities are often taken as a necessary condition for establishing multilateral institutions. Moreover, it entails elements of hegemony in the Gramscian sense. “Many governing ideas and institutions of the post-war global order, despite originating from a specific European and American milieu, are assumed to have a universal quality, in the sense of applying to all.” this arrangement

3 inadequately reflects the reality of the emerging global society with plurality as its most distinct feature. third, current multilateralism in practice rests largely on the assumption of individual rationality. due to this assumption, multilateral institutions are deemed as another means to pursue self-interest by member states. this tends to sharpen the tension between the interstate and global societies.

to relax the tension between the two societies and make global governance more effective, it is necessary to reform existing multilateralism, which is too hegemony-centric, state-centric and ego-centric. I would like to put forward in a heuristic way some ideas summarized as pluralism, participation and partnership:

recognizes a distinct fact in today’s world. It contains three interrelated aspects: plurality, diversity and complementarity. It draws our attention to a world composed of multiple actors with no single power able to take responsibility for global governance. It also places great emphasis on diversity, realizing that no one model of global governance can claim to be universal and we need to draw on different approaches for practical wisdom. furthermore, it values inclusivity and respects different ways of life in a plural world, recognizing that these various approaches are complementary rather than confrontational, co-operative rather than conflictual.

makes everyone a positive agent. Multilateralism requires comprehensive participation. New actors, such as emerging powers and social movements, need particular attention. Without their participation, multilateralism would lose much of its legitimacy. It also requires active participation. Only teaching new